If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sovereignty: Even if he's not re-elected, the president hopes to leave behind a treaty giving a U.N. body veto power over the use of our territorial waters and to which we'd be required to give half of our offshore oil revenue.

The Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST) has been lurking in the shadows for decades. Like the Kyoto Protocol that pretended to be an effort to save the earth from the poisoned fruit of the Industrial Revolution, LOST pretends to be an effort to protect the world's oceans from environmental damage and remove it as a cause of potential conflicts between nations.

Like its Kyoto cousin, LOST is an attempt at the global redistribution of power and wealth, the embodiment of the progressive dream of the end of the nation state as we know it and the end of political freedom by giving veto over all of mankind's activities to a global body — in this case something called the International Seabed Authority, located in Kingston, Jamaica.

The ISA would have the power to regulate 70% of the earth's surface, placing seabed mining, fishing rights, deep-sea oil exploration and even the activities of the U.S. Navy under control of a global bureaucracy. It even provides for a global tax that would be paid directly to the ISA by companies seeking to develop the resources in and under the world's oceans. >>>

Maritime and jurisdictional disputes would be settled by the ISA, which presumably would tell the U.S. Navy where it could and could not go. Freedom of navigation has been guaranteed by the U.S. Navy and, before it, the British Royal Navy. Now it would be the ISA. This meets perfectly the definition of the "global test" Sen. John Kerry, a backer of LOST, said in 2004 that our actions must meet. >>>

LOST was a bad idea when President Reagan refused to sign it in 1982 and actually fired the State Department staff members who helped negotiate it. It was drafted at the behest of Soviet bloc and Third World dictators interested in a scheme to weaken U.S. power and sovereignty while transferring wealth from the industrialized to the developing world.

Reagan rightly decided the U.S. shouldn't be a part of this global resource grab and redistribution of wealth. The treaty was co-authored by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, an admirer of Karl Marx and a socialist who ran the World Federation of Canada.

Russia and China really want this treaty signed badly. That should be a clue. If this treaty is signed, you will actually be able to see Russian and Chinese drilling platforms from the American shore. Isnt it ironic that Lugar postponed the vote out of fear it might cost him the primary? The PDF above exposes the other RINO's who also despise Americas sovereignty.

This is very frightening. I hope that the politicians have the courage to block this. I don't know what it will take for the people in the US to wake up.

It's very telling that the mighty O won't allow the US companies to drill along the shore, but he will sign something allowing the Chinese and Russians to do so.

Various groups have been trying to regulate in some fashion the ocean, which is truly the last frontier. There have been numerous treaties signed, but certain rogue nations do not live up to their promises. The ocean has been turned into a giant garbage dump. But this isn't the way to correct things. Nothing remotely connected to the UN should infringe on our sovereignty.

4 more years of Obama and we'll have the power of a 3rd world banana republic.

‎" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world.""A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of Wolves!"

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced Wednesday he likely won't bring up the Law of the Sea Treaty for a vote before the November election.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said some lawmakers “on and off the committee” have candidly told him they'd “be more comfortable” if they could avoid having to cast the controversial vote during the campaign season.

He made the announcement during a high-level hearing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

“I would like to see this treaty stay out of the hurly-burly of presidential politics,” Kerry said. “So heeding that advice, and preferring that we encourage the kind of evaluative and educational process which does justice to this committee and justice to the United States Senate ratification process, I announce today that I do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the November election.”

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced Wednesday he likely won't bring up the Law of the Sea Treaty for a vote before the November election.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said some lawmakers “on and off the committee” have candidly told him they'd “be more comfortable” if they could avoid having to cast the controversial vote during the campaign season.

He made the announcement during a high-level hearing with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.

“I would like to see this treaty stay out of the hurly-burly of presidential politics,” Kerry said. “So heeding that advice, and preferring that we encourage the kind of evaluative and educational process which does justice to this committee and justice to the United States Senate ratification process, I announce today that I do not currently intend to bring the treaty to a vote before the November election.”

That's the part that scares me. They KNOW it's wrong, and don't want to vote for it during an election year. BUT, that says they'd be comfortable surrendering this nation's wealth and sovereignty in an off year.

Folks, it's time to resurrect Jefferson: We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.